> > I am not sure adding more RGW's will increase the performance.
That was a tangent. > To be clear, that means whatever.rgw.buckets.index ? >>> No, sorry my bad. .index is 32 and .data is 256. >> Oh, yeah. Does `ceph osd df` show you at the far right like 4-5 PG replicas >> on each OSD? You want (IMHO) to end up with 100-200, keeping each pool's >> pg_num to a power of 2 ideally. > > No, my RBD pool is larger. My average PG per OSD is round 60-70. Ah. Aim for 100-200 with spinners. > >> Assuming all your pools span all OSDs, I suggest at a minimum 256 for .index >> and 8192 for .data, assuming you have only RGW pools. And would be included >> to try 512 / 8192. Assuming your other minor pools are at 32, I'd bump >> .log and .non-ec to 128 or 256 as well. >> If you have RBD or other pools colocated, those numbers would change. >> ^ above assume disabling the autoscaler > > I bumped my .data pool from 256 to 1024 and .index from 32 to 128. Your index pool still only benefits from half of your OSDs with a value of 128. > Also doubled the .non-e and .log pools. Performance wise I don't see any > improvement. If I would see 10-20% improvement, I definitely would increase > it to 512 / 8192. > With 0.5MB object size I am still limited at about 150 up to 250 objects/s. > > The disks aren't saturated. The wr await is mostly around 1ms and does not > get higher when benchmarking with S3. Trust iostat about as far as you can throw it. > > Other suggestions, or does anyone else has suggestions? > _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
